As much as I like David Cameron, I am somewhat ambivalent to read reports that he intends (if and when, of course, the Tories make it back into power this year) to make entry into teacher training more difficult. Promising funding to the brightest graduates, Dave wants to make teaching a "noble profession" (his words, not mine), and only allow those with a 2:2 honours degree or higher access onto the PGCE (teacher training) course. I say funding, but that is probably too much to hope for. I believe financial incentive is the phrase used. Trainee teachers already receive a small tax free bursary worth between £4,000 and £9,000 depending on the subject, so how much more financial incentive is Cameron intending - or able - to offer to get the "best" graduates on board? Why don't those undertaking a B.Ed degree receive financial support, such as those on NHS degrees do (currently funded places plus bursaries for some courses)? Surely by making teaching specific degrees free, we won't be left with hundreds of newly qualified teachers struggling under huge amounts of student debt possibly choosing to work in the private sector as a way of affording to live. We already have a long list of shortage subjects that attract the highest bursaries for trainee teachers, so surely by restricting the number of eligible wannabe teachers all that will happen is that the list will grow... and grow... and grow...
As a parent with two school age sons - one at primary and one at secondary level - I am all for ways to improve the quality of teaching. I have generally been happy with the teaching my boys have received over the years, although I have had some minor complaints. My worst bugbear is teachers who spell words wrongly, or - even worse - have poor grammar. These people are teaching my children to read and write, so should have to undertake at least a National Literacy test at level 2 (used for adult learners) to make sure they know how to spell and to use apostrophes correctly, even when teaching Key Stage 1 learners! It is a sad fact, and one I see every day when reading through CVs and wincing at the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, that having a degree no longer means you have a high level of literacy. I have seen CVs from degree-educated professionals who can barely string a coherent sentence together! I am a teaching assistant for an adult literacy class one night a week - and incidentally HAD to take my own level 2 Literacy test before I was allowed to practise (I passed, thanks for asking) - and spend time tutoring them in the use of commas, full stops, apostrophes etc. I certainly don't expect a paid, fully qualified teacher to have the same problems with the English language as my students.
That aside, the quality of experienced and child-oriented teachers is generally high. And therein lies the crux of the matter - experience. Yes, we shouldn't allow the educationally challenged to train and teach our precious children, but surely experience and aptitude should mean more than merely a number on the bottom of your degree certificate? If Cameron really wants to recruit only the creme de la creme into the profession, why not target those holding a 2:1 or above? Or even only a First? Back in the old days, teachers didn't even need formal qualifications. Nobody would dream of suggesting a return back to this practice, but surely Cameron has to consider bringing those with at least some experience of working with children in an educational setting (e.g. teaching assistants) into the profession without the need for a 2:2 degree, or even a degree at all. We were discussing this at my Tuesday morning college class, where we are all studying to work with adults in the Skills 4 Life programme (teaching literacy, numeracy and ESOL courses). As a group of mainly middle-class, intelligent women who give our time for free to help tutor adults, it seems unfair that only a couple of us would be eligible to enter teacher training courses, even though it is something that a high percentage of the class want to do in the future. So any of us considering teaching under-16s have to consider applying to undertake a degree course. But none of us can afford to pay the fees, or the childcare, or to give up our jobs to study full-time.
It seems there are a whole raft of people who would love to teach, yet are excluded under current guidelines, and this is set to be even worse under possible Tory rule. Now, I dispute the idea that I am less intelligent, less able and less "noble" than a 21-year-old graduate whose only teaching experience is theoretic or under a controlled placement as part of a course plus the year's PGCE/ training. Experience, age and having my own children doesn't make me MORE qualified or suited to teaching than everyone else, but surely this must count for something? At secondary level, of course those who excel in their specialist subject are best placed to teach - personally, nothing in this world would make me able to teach science or maths (unless Stephen Hawking offers to be my brain donor).
Yes, Dave - there must be a process put in place to ensure that the best teachers are picked out and trained to give the next generation the education they deserve, but is this the only way? If the Tories really want to improve the education system, they could give it a damned good overhaul. If teachers didn't have to spend hours filling in paperwork to prove that they are following the ever-changing National Curriculum, or to pander to the whims of the Ofsted inspectors, or dealing with troublesome pupils, they could get down to the real job at hand - actual teaching! If the pointless bureaucracy was removed, if headteachers got the support they needed to deal with problem children and received funding for more specialist teachers then surely this would go a long way towards solving the issues.
If Cameron really wants to make teaching a prestige profession, then the way teachers are treated and supported by government needs to change. Fast-tracking professionals who are looking for a career change is one way that he has mentioned (although, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this already in place?), which is useful, especially for those who have business or industry based people and communication skills. But he shouldn't forget the people who DON'T have the requisite degree to prove their intelligence and diligence - the dedicated and experienced teaching or learning support assistants, or the unpaid mums and dads who volunteer their time in the classroom to help educate our children - the people who are sometimes the backbone of the education system that won't fund enough paid teachers or classroom assistants, or even enough educational materials. Surely these people have a great deal to offer, but without having "proven" ability - although personally I disprove that a degree proves the ability to do anything rather than study a subject at a high level - they will never be given the opportunity to teach as a career.
Although I'm sure Dave will be quite happy for them to carry on teaching our children for free.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment